Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Larry Froistad appeals from an order denying his application for postconviction relief to withdraw his guilty plea. In 1998, Froistad pled guilty to murdering his daughter by setting fire to his residence when she was inside. In 2000, 2012 and 2020, Froistad applied for postconviction relief. In the third such application, Froistad sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The State responded and raised the affirmative defenses of res judicata and misuse of process. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the application because it was untimely under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01, and the claims were barred by res judicata and misuse of process under N.D.C.C. 29- 32.1-12. The court also concluded the alleged newly discovered evidence of false confessions, when reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would not establish that Froistad did not commit murder. Froistad argued the district court erred in his third application for postconviction relief by concluding his claims were barred by res judicata. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Froistad v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.B. appealed a district court order denying his petition for treatment in community placement. J.B. was committed to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous individual in September 2005. At the hearing, the State called Dr. Deirdre D’Orazio, who testified that J.B. remained a sexually dangerous individual and was not ready for community placement. J.B. called Dr. Stacey Benson, who also testified that J.B. remained a sexually dangerous individual but that he was ready for community placement. Based on his expert’s opinion, J.B. petitioned for community placement. The trial court found the State established clear and convincing evidence that J.B. remained a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. 25-03.3-01(8), and denied his petition for community placement, concluding that the statute was constitutional and that because the executive director did not petition for community placement, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider J.B.’s petition. On appeal, J.B. argued the district court erred in determining that N.D.C.C. 25-03.3-24 did not violate the separation of powers. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Interest of J.B." on Justia Law

The State petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of supervision directing the district court to grant a motion to amend a charge against Misty Lee Schwarz. Schwarz was charged with fourth offense of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) and a sixth offense in five years of driving with a suspended license. On November 9, 2020, the State and Schwarz reached a plea agreement, which called for amending the fourth offense DUI down to a third offense DUI. This agreement would change the offense level from a class C felony to a class A misdemeanor. It also included a provision agreeing to a specific sentence. The same day, the State filed a motion to amend the charge. The State asserted the charge needed an amendment to a lower level offense to create a longer sentence for Schwarz due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At a pretrial conference, the court expressed concern with amending the charge to the misdemeanor third offense, and ultimately denied the plea agreement and motion to amend the charge. The State sought a writ of supervision from the Supreme Court to compel the district court to amend the charge, arguing the court violated the separation of powers doctrine and infringed upon the State’s prosecutorial discretion. Finding that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the State’s motion, the Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for a writ of supervision. View "North Dakota v. Louser, et al." on Justia Law

On March 13, 2020, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum declared a state of emergency and activated the North Dakota State Emergency Operations Plan via Executive Order (“E.O.”) 2020-03. Governor Burgum’s declaration of a state emergency was in response to the public health crisis resulting from the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”). On March 19, 2020, Governor Burgum issued E.O. 2020-06 which closed certain business establishments in North Dakota, limited physical access to other business establishments in North Dakota, directed state agencies and offices to regulate staffing, and limited access to the North Dakota State Capitol by appointment only. These restrictions were set to expire on April 6, 2020. On March 27, 2020, E.O. 2020-06 was amended as E.O. 2020-06.1 to include the closure of salons and ordering licensed cosmetologists to cease operations. Kari Riggin appealed a criminal judgment entered after she conditionally pled guilty to a violation of Executive Order 2020-06, an infraction. Riggin challenged the Governor’s authority to restrict her ability to engage in cosmetology services within an assisted living facility as part of the State’s response to a declared state of emergency. Finding the governor did not exceed the statutory authority delegated to him through N.D.C.C. ch. 37-17.1. Riggin failed to adequately support her challenge E.O. 2020-06 was unconstitutional because it restricted her right to conduct business, engage in employment, and failed to adequately support her contention the executive order and the criminal penalties imposed for a violation of an executive order were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Riggin" on Justia Law

Lorenzo Pemberton appealed an order denying his application for postconviction relief. Pemberton argued he was convicted of a non-cognizable offense, attempted knowing murder, which did not require the defendant to have an intent to cause the death of another human being. He also argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined attempt to “knowingly” commit a murder was indeed a non-cognizable offense and that the erroneous jury instruction allowing conviction for attempted knowing murder was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Pemberton v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

K.V. appealed a juvenile court memorandum opinion, issued after remand, that denied his motion to suppress evidence. K.V. was charged and adjudicated a delinquent child for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia in January 2019. K.V. moved to suppress the evidence gathered after the stop. Following a hearing on the motion to suppress, the juvenile court issued an order denying K.V.’s motion. K.V. appealed, arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration because the juvenile court did not make specific findings on the reasonableness of the pat down and did not identify what exception to the warrant requirement justified the search. Following remand, the juvenile court issued the memorandum opinion at issue here. The court concluded the pat down was justified based on officer safety, but determined the further search was not supported by the record for officer safety, because the officer did not identify what he felt during the pat down. However, relying on precedent from another jurisdiction that did not require individualized suspicion to search a passenger when the odor of marijuana is emanating from a vehicle, the court found, that based on what he saw, heard and smelled, the officer believed he had probable cause to search K.V. for marijuana and related paraphernalia. The court concluded, “based on the totality of the circumstances that Officer Engen had probable cause to search the person of K.V. for illegal drugs and the search was legal.” The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the juvenile court erred in concluding the officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of K.V. under the totality of the circumstances, and reversed the juvenile court’s memorandum opinion denying K.V.’s motion to suppress and the order adjudicating K.V. a delinquent child. View "Interest of K.V." on Justia Law

Travis Lafromboise appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to charges of burglary and criminal mischief, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. Lafromboise argued the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss and granting the State a continuance, contending the time limitations under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act expired and the court no longer had jurisdiction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Lafromboise" on Justia Law

Bridget Medbery appealed after she conditionally pled guilty to actual physical control, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to suppress. On November 21, 2019, officers responded to a report that a woman, later identified as Medbery, was unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked in a driveway. Medbery was ultimately arrested for and charged with actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. At a hearing in early 2020, Medbery unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop, arguing she was unconstitutionally seized. To the North Dakota Supreme Court, Medbery argued the district court erred in concluding the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement applied, and that the trial court erred in finding law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the time she was seized. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of West Fargo v. Medbery" on Justia Law

Cody Michael Atkins had a lengthy history of proceedings before the district court and the North Dakota Supreme Court, most of which stemmed from his guilty plea to gross sexual imposition in 2015, and the series of appeals and applications for post-conviction relief that followed. Atkins appealed an order that summarily dismissed his most recent application for post-conviction relief. Atkins argued the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case, failing to give him notice prior to dismissal, applying affirmative defenses not raised by the state, and by failing to address his actual innocence argument. Explaining that summary dismissal of an application before the State responded was “analogous to dismissal of a civil complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” or “appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing his case: “Atkins fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.” View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Santos Casarez, III appealed when his motion to suppress evidence was denied, and his conditional guilty plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test was accepted. Jamestown Police Officer Andrew Noreen witnessed a physical altercation between Casarez and a female outside a bar in Jamestown. Officer Renfro was also at the scene and spoke to the female and Casarez. During Renfro’s conversation with Casarez, he smelled an odor of alcohol on Casarez’s breath, and observed Casarez’s poor balance and bloodshot eyes. At that point Renfro formed the opinion Casarez was not capable of lawfully driving a motor vehicle. Renfro provided Casarez with the necessary information to provide bail for his girlfriend, and advised him to take a cab to the law enforcement center (LEC) due to his intoxication. During their conversation, Renfro learned Casarez drove a gold GMC Yukon. Renfro then left the scene. Forty-five minutes later, Renfro observed a gold GMC Yukon parked outside the LEC, along with a man he believed to be Casarez standing inside the lobby. Renfro observed the unoccupied Yukon was running with its lights on. Renfro made contact with Casarez in the lobby, observing the same signs of impairment as earlier. Renfro began talking to Casarez to confirm or dispel his suspicion Casarez had driven to the LEC. Renfro ultimately placed Casarez under investigation for driving under the influence. He requested Casarez complete a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, and confirmed from LEC security camera footage, Casarez drove himself. Renfro requested Casarez submit to a preliminary breath test and placed Casarez under arrest; leading to the charges under appeal. Casarez argued Jamestown Municipal Code section 21-04-06 was in direct conflict with N.D.C.C. section 39-08-01 after the Legislature’s 2019 amendment to the statute, and the Ordinance was void because it conflicted with a state statute. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "City of Jamestown v. Casarez" on Justia Law